Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 38: 38: Clause 9, page 7, line 2, leave out ““schools”” and insert ““educational institutions”” The noble Lord said: I am conscious that the amendment brings together various threads in my noble friend’s varied and extensive responsibilities, so I particularly hope that he will be able to respond positively. I place on record the fact that I have had very helpful discussions with some of those working with the children and young people to whom the amendments apply. I have found their commitment, based on their insight and experience, utterly convincing. I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 38 to 42 and Amendment No. 45. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, says about Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, because they seem to be very much in harmony with what I am proposing. Under Clause 9, local authorities are required to make arrangements for a child whom they are looking after to be accommodated near to the school at which the child is a registered pupil. As far as it goes, this is to be welcomed; it may go some way towards addressing the instability that looked-after children experience in their education. Annual education statistics have clearly demonstrated the wide gap in performance between looked-after children and the wider child population across all key stages. For example, in 2006, 58 per cent of looked-after children of the appropriate age achieved level 2 at key stage 1, compared with 85 per cent of the general population of that age group. At key stage 2, 47 per cent achieved level 4, compared with 81 per cent of the general population. At key stage 3, 30 per cent achieved level 5, compared with 74 per cent of the wider population. At key stage 4, the inequalities persist, with 12 per cent of looked-after children achieving five or more A* to C grades at GCSE, compared with 59 per cent of the general population. It is widely acknowledged that instability in a looked-after child’s placement is one of the key barriers to their receiving uninterrupted education provision and therefore to their achieving their potential. While the provisions under Clause 9 are welcome, a number of questions remain. First, it is unclear what categories of educational establishments are included under the clause, apart from the provision that pupil referral units be altogether excluded. The purpose of the amendment is to gain clarification from the Government on which educational establishments will be included. For example, will the provisions cover maintained nursery schools, academies and special schools? Secondly, in the Care Matters White Paper, the Government recognised that many young people are leaving care at 16 when they may well be ill prepared to live independently and where such a transition can have a negative impact on the child’s education and training. The White Paper also proposes pilots to better involve young people aged 16 to 18 in decisions around their leaving care and to allow young people to remain with their foster carers until the age of 21. With this emphasis on allowing looked-after young people to stay in care beyond the age of 16, should further education colleges at which such young people may be receiving educational provision really not be included under Clause 9? Finally, as I have just explained, new subsection (9B)(a), to be inserted by Clause 9, states that, "““‘school’ does not include a pupil referral unit””." This raises considerable concerns. I hope that my noble friend can clarify precisely why PRUs are not included. They provide education to children of compulsory school age who, because of exclusion, illness or other factors, are unable to attend a mainstream school. Like other children, a looked-after child who has had difficulties in mainstream education may well be receiving education in a PRU. Placement in accommodation far away from this establishment could have a negative impact on a child’s educational achievement and experience. Indeed, it could almost be argued that those children are, by definition, more in need of nearby provision than are others. To sum up, will my noble friend take the opportunity of Grand Committee to clarify exactly which educational institutions will be included under the Clause 9 provisions? Will he indicate whether further education colleges will also be included under Clause 9 to reflect the Government’s intentions to allow looked-after children to stay in care beyond the age of 16? Will he explain why pupil referral units have been excluded from the Clause 9 provisions? I beg to move.